Wolfowitz, Libby, Pace, but who fell first?

Pace's departure seems to be another sign of a major change in tack for this administration.

Brooks said it today on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, the administration is trying to "bind" the next President to some kind of policy in Iraq. What happened today is another step, but certainly not the first step, towards that goal.

The shift in strategy is a little too late for W., though. His legacy is definitely shit canned. He seems like a man tearing apart at the seams. I actually am feeling sorry for him. He was always out of his depth and now he is visibly struggling personally to stay afloat.

No matter, he was always dispensable to the people that set him on a shelf of power. The Baker's and the Schulz's of the world, and the little man behind the curtain, or the guy holding the strings. They never cared about him. They liked him because he didn't care. He was malleable. He would play along. Now, he is just a dried up, sapped up alcoholic getting his kicks from non-alcoholic beer. Been there, haven't done that.

The ship began to bear away with the Iraq Study group. That group that everyone seems to believe had absolutely no impact on future direction. But, do you really think James Baker ever gets involved in anything of insignificance.? Things began to really show with the departure of Rummy, perhaps the first to fall. In came Gates. Quiet, efficient, low profile feeling his way into the dark swamp that Rumsfeld and the crew created.

Gates who somewhow seemed to float outside the bubble. The first that really put his head down and began to work in what appeared to be isolation.

Now falls Pace and a new Chairman steps in. The pieces are in place for the next phase. What it is is hard to say, but it has begun.

So, at some point along the line, the tiller must have been eased out from the hands of Cheney. The guy that was steering during this leg of the regatta. Perhaps it was at the same time that the architect, or the navigator, Rove also stopped determining the next political coordinates. Perhaps that unknown moment was when the boom came swinging around, knocking the neo-cons over board.

Who ordered the change is unknown, but they're swinging the pendulum of opinion the other way. The MSM will become increasingly negative about the administration. The momentum will build setting the stage for a "sweeping change" in power through the election of a Democratic President. Except, there will be no sweeping change. The elected individual will continue the charade. Representing the interests of the elite classes, while giving the people a sense of satisfaction. The King is Dead. Long Live the King.

Often there is a bit player that's not really in the game. Goldwater, Dean, Kucinich, Nader, Ron Paul, perhaps? Someone that is clearly not part of the racket. But, alas they never get elected. Or else the fun would end. Even when what they say is clearly what we have all been saying all along:

1. End the war on Drugs - it's a war on a lot of people we know.
2. Treat people fairly - don't bomb them - trade with them.
3. Decide what you want for you and your family at a local level.
4. Protect privacy.
5. Put an end to fear mongering.
6. Strengthen our borders and our first responders.
7. Develop alternate forms of energy.
8. Simplify the tax code.
9. Promote private enterprise and capitalism.
10. Pursue sound monetary policy.
11. Protect the constitution (lest I forget).

Must we elect again a candidate from the band of privateers, the ones that have eroded our liberties and started unnecessary wars? Can't we put someone in power that is going to make a difference? Someone that is reasoned and reasonable?

I hope so. But, I'm a dreamer